My review of the legend of Korra

My review of the legend of Korra

Intro: Show of hands who thinks making a sequel series to Avatar the last airbender was a good idea?  

 

The legend of Korra: This series takes place a century after the events of Avatar the last airbender and a new Avatar name Korra appears. With the exception of airbending, she manages to master the elements and there are threats popping up around the nation. So, Korra has to learn airbending in order to fulfill her role as the Avatar. 

This was not a good follow-up to Avatar the last airbender! That's kind of a shame because despite me not being on board with this series I was course to see how the writers could expand on what was established in that series. The creators seem to be aware that trying to top its predecessor is a tall order, so the creators tried to do something different. For example, instead of getting us one simple story, we get four different stories for each season. I feel like I'm watching a graphic novel. To be fair this was suppose to be a short series. Seasons 2 and 4 can get ridiculous to the point where you feel like you're watching Godzilla or Mobile Suit Gundam. Speaking of season 2 that was the worst season out of the four because it started off as one thing and turns into something else. The problem with the conflict in seasons one and four is that we don't see it. 

This series is more character-driven than its predecessor. I wouldn't have minded that if the subplot were used to develop the characters instead of putting them in boxes. When the supporting characters have more development than the main characters you know you screwed up. It's hard to care about the new team Avatar because they spend more time apart. Most of the villains in this show are forgettable. They have fine motivation however they go about achieving their goals in a way that doesn't make them look bad. 

The world-building in this series opens up a can of worms. We get an explanation to the origins of bending and the avatar let's just say less is more. I'm having a hard time buying that society has become this advance in 100 years. For example, republic city looks like 1920's New York. When we see the other nations, they are not as advanced because their culture is based on the bender's ability. In republic city, bending is trivialized for the most part and reduced to sports. The show tried to bland the same animation from the previous series with CGI and it sticks out like a sore thumb. The clip note episode is wasted I mean it could have been better if it was a movie serial.  

Korra is hotheaded, bratty and determined. It's understandable why she likes this because she has gone through the same journey as the other Avatars before her. Plus, we get an explanation to why she's treated differently from the other avatars. Despite all of that, she does have a good heart. Those character traits are the reason why she's having trouble with airbending. What bugs me about her is that when she finally learns airbending it was odd. I mean it came out of the blue. I find it hard to swallow that she can master the other three elements with ease. I get why the creators did this to prevent this series from being a copy of the previous show, but you can pull it off without doing that. What's the point of being the Avatar if you're not one of the best or the best bender? That's what this series could have done with Korra. Don't you find it funny that this character got so much focus that she barely develops? Plus, the writers made her look bad in season 2. 

Tenzin (One of Aang's kids.) is Korra's mentor. He's calm, serious and has funny moments with his family. He still feels the effects of the 100-year wars because his family are the only airbenders.  

Bolin (Mako's brother.) Is fun-loving and laid-back. That's what annoys me about this character because he's the comic relief we don't get any serious scenes with him and it makes him look stupid.  

Mako is a stick in the mud. I don't like the love triangle he's in because he has no chemistry with either of the women and he it makes him look bad playing both of them. 

Asami is a kind and caring person who can take care of herself. I'm surprised she like this considering her upbringing. My gripe with her is that she's underused. It's hard to appreciate her dynamic with her father because the show didn't focus on it. The series drop hits that there's more to her relationship with Korra. I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I can buy where the writers are going with these two because females can be close to each other in a way that men can't. On the other hand, you can't have it both ways. I mean if the creators are afraid to expose their relationship, then it shouldn't have been in the show. 

Lin is the Chief of Police in Republic city and Toph's daughter. She's an uptight no-nonsense person. That makes sense considering who her mom is plus she has family issues. 

Varrick is a better comic relief character than Bolin. Don't ask why comedy is subjective. He's also a shady character. The only complaint I have with him is his assistant, I wish she express her feelings sooner than later.           

I like that this series continues to explore the ability to bend the elements. It's good to see some of the legacy characters. Each season tried to be about something. Season one was about equality, season two was about spirituality, season three was about freedom and season four was about control. I appreciate this series trying to address the issue of PTSD I just wish it didn't come at the expense of character development. This series addresses other serious issues like family trauma. The beginning of season three reflex our current situation.

Overall, this series is a mess that I wouldn't recommend checking out. 

My Sonic the Hedgehog 2 review

 My Sonic the Hedgehog 2 review 

 

Intro: The people who keep posting spoilers need to get slapped. Seriously, if it were up to me, I would ban people from social media for doing this. If Mr. Trump can get banned, why can't they?

Sonic the Hedgehog 2: This movie takes place 8 months after the events of the first film, and Sonic is using his powers to do good. One day, Dr. Robotnik returns to Earth with an ally, and together they are looking for a MacGuffin that will give him ultimate power for world domination. So, Sonic has to find it before Dr. Robotnik does.

I enjoyed this movie more than the last one, but that's not saying much. I like that this movie builds off the last films, for example, we learned why Sonic was chased out of his homeworld? This movie is more of an action-adventure film than the previous one. The movie focuses mostly on the Sonic characters rather than the human ones. The movie has a subtle message about acceptance. Of course, you can't have a movie like this without easter eggs, and I appreciate the writers trying to be creative with the Sonic lore.  

Sonic is a cocky, confident, wisecracker who goes through a hero's journey. That's my problem with him his hero's journey has no pay-off. Also, I wish he was mature. I mean, the movie treats him like a kid, and that undermines him as a character. 

Tails is just like his video game counterpart as far as being smart. I'm glad that the movie got the voice actress who's voiced this character for over ten years. His dynamic with Sonic is just like in the games as far as having a big brother-little brother relationship. What bugs me about this character is that he serves no purpose in the movie beyond explaining things. 

Knuckles is a noble, naive, and fierce warrior of the Echidna tribe. This is refreshing considering how this character is turned into a joke in certain games. He also provides some of the humor in this movie by taking things literally. My only gripe with him is that the conflict between him and Sonic lacks the emotional weight that it could have had. 

Dr. Robotnik is more diabolical in this movie. Considering that this is Mr. Carry's last movie, I hope this won't be the last time we see this character. After seeing what this movie teased for the third movie, he needs to be in it. This complaint is about Agent Stone (Dr. Robotnik's right-hand man.) The way he misses him makes me question their relationship.

One of the problems with this movie is the climax; it wasn't bad, but something happened that came out of nowhere with no build-up. Plus, it eliminates the tension in the climax. Bringing Sonic characters into the human world was a mistake because giving the humans any screen time takes away the focus from Sonic and the others. There is a twist involving the human characters to get us to care about what's going on with them. It doesn't work because we don't know these people, and the lighthearted tone ruins it. Speaking of tone, you can't take certain things seriously because the tone doesn't match the scene. Some of the effects don't look good, the floss and meow joke still didn't work.   

Overall, this movie didn't break the curse, but it's a step in the right direction.  

Rating = Average       

My thoughts on the Halo series

 My thoughts on the Halo series

 

After nine years of waiting were finally getting a Halo series, it’s too bad that it doesn’t mean a darn thing! Also, do we really need a Halo movie? I mean Star Wars Rouge One is similar to Halo Reach. The more we learn about the show the less interested fans are going to watch it. We were told three things about this series first thing is the show is not based on canon, it takes place in a different timeline. Second, Master Chief will take off his helmet. Finally, the people who worked on the series didn’t play the games. You can tell that the creative team is not familiar with this franchise because the actor who's playing Master Chief doesn't sound like him and this franchise doesn’t deal with time paradox or multiverse. This franchise has gone downhill after 343 industries took over this franchise. (I wouldn't have minded Halo 4 telling a personal story if it didn't come at the expense of this franchise; that game felt like fan fiction.) How is alienating the fanbase going to help boost morale? Look, I’m not trying to discourage creativity however Hollywood didn’t earn the right to do that with this franchise. These adaptations are pushing thirty years old and Hollywood is not batting a thousand when it comes to them. 

I understand why writers would come up with an original story and attach it to a well-known franchise as a way to get people to watch it. 

However, it makes no sense to do that here I mean Sci-Fi is a popular genre. The creators have no reason not to play any of the games, how can you make a show about them if you don’t know anything about the games? You don’t think that would make you look stupid? The games and outside sources can work as movies or TV Shows. For example, the only Halo book I read was First Strike and that can work as a movie, so what’s the problem?

As far as Master Chief taking off his helmet, I can be fixable with this. I wouldn’t mind this if it’s done in a meaningful way and the scene was shot where the characters can see his face but the viewers can’t. I hope it’s not done too often because his armor doesn’t work without his helmet. We don’t need to see his face to know what he’s thinking or feeling, if Darth Vader can get away with it why can’t this character? I’m going to address some of the things that bothered me about the trailers. In this series Master Chief and the other Spartans are created to fight a war against the covenant I’m guessing. The Spartans were not created to fight a war they were created to protect the UNSC from rebels. I don’t know what’s more ridiculous Master Chief being able to fight off two Elites or Batman being able to fight two Predators. 

Also, how can the UNSC be at war with the covenant when they are at odds with the scientist? Speaking of scientists Dr. Halsey doesn’t look good the same thing goes for Cortana. We also see a human allying herself with the covenant how is that possible!?! We saw the Elite slander a bunch of humans in the trailer what’s going on here!?! The only explanation I can think of is that there is division among them, or the woman is not human. I hope she doesn't replace the Arbiter. Another thing there is a girl in this series that fans think the show will be centered on her. Considering how Hollywood throws men under the bus to make women look good this wouldn’t surprise me.

In closing, this show is doomed to fail. That’s a shame because it has good production value if only the budget when to the writers. This might appeal to the general public, but it will rub fans the wrong way.  

My thought on the difficulty in video games

My thought on the difficulty in video games 

For those of you who don’t play video games, there has been people and so-call gaming journalist complaining about video games being too hard lately. To be fair this has been going on for the past five or six years and I hope it would stop. First, it was Dark Souls then Metroid Dread and now Elden Rings. Of course, like most of the gaming community, I brush it off as them being lazy, entitled, afraid of fomo or they want to be a completionist. The gaming community even started a hashtag # get good and I respond to them by saying play a telltale game. 

Heck game developers pop fun at us for playing games on easy mode. 

I feel bad for jumping on people who complain about this without seeing if this is a topic worth talking about. Plus, there is something I didn’t consider and that’s player expression. Also, I’m just tired of people expecting everyone to include them in everything. There is a right way and a wrong way to do hard mode in video games. When hard mode is done right it causes you to think of ways to beat the boss or complete your objective. It encourages you to be familiar with the game’s mechanics and know when to use them. For example, there is a level in Crash Bandicoot where you have to reach the end of a broken bridge without falling. You can do this by timing your jumps or using the ropes. Another example is GM mode in the Smackdown vs Raw games. The goal in that mode is to win General Manager of the year award. In order to do that you have to keep the rating high and that's no simple task. 

When it’s done wrong, it feels like the game is testing your patients instead of having you think. (I'm not saying that a difficult game shouldn't test your patients but there should be a limit.) This is the problem I have with the Halo games whenever I play them on Legendary mode, I feel like I’m being handicapped. The enemy A.I. has increased health and can do more damage when they hit you. Because of that I barely got past the first wave of enemies because I use most of my ammo on one of them. Playing Halo involves strategy as far as you have to prioritize which alien are you going to kill first? By making them OP you took the fun away and now the game has become a chore. I heard when you play a certain mode in the Destiny games, your equipment is limited and you have to play the game a certain way. If that's true, then that's hurting the player expression. That's why I don't like trophies in games because they are telling me how to play the game instead of letting me play the game how I want to play it.    

Despite my enjoyment of Pac-Man, it's one of the hardest games to beat for me. The reason why is because whenever you beat a level the ghost move faster and the power Pac’s last shorter. Memorizing the ghost movement patterns doesn't mean anything if you don’t have the reflexes to match. I’m not saying that this hurt the game however I can understand why other people would feel differently. Another thing that annoys me about playing games on hard mode is that when you died you have to start all over again as far as regain your collectibles and stats. (Well, that depends on what you're playing.) This is why platform games like Mega Man and Crash Bandicoot don't need hard modes because they become difficult as you progress through the game and you become familiar with the controls. They do the same thing with racing games, once you're familiar with the controls the tracks become harder and the time limit is shorter. 

There are some games where hard mode is ridiculous. For example, the hard mode in NBA 2K2 is an invisible wall when the A.I. is playing defense. I’m not kidding about that why was this game popular at the time? Star Wars Bounty Hunter doesn’t have a hard mode, but that game has tasks that can be hard to achieve like collecting bounties. I mean it’s hard to get certain ones because the target is in the middle of a shootout, and you don’t have enough time to decide if you want the target dead or alive? When playing a wrestling game as a cruiserweight going up against a heavyweight, there isn't much you can do against him besides outmaneuvering your opponent. (Well, that depends on which game you're playing.) Don't get me started on the Xbox 360 version of Iron Man. 

Yes! Hard mode in games can make or break those games especially if the game is broken. When you beat a game on hard mode you should feel like you accomplish something by overcoming the challenge not rejoicing that you finally beat the game and hope you never play it again. Then again easy mode can hurt the game as well, I mean if the game is too easy you have no incentive to explore the game. When it comes to Dark Souls and Elden Rings I hear people complain that those games have no maps, no indicator that tells you when an enemy is going to hit you, the game doesn't drop hits and you can't tell if you're fighting the final boss. 

Where was this complaint when it comes to the Legend of Zelda games? I mean some of the Zelda games are like this. Also, Pokémon games don't have maps either. I can understand why those games bug you if you're bad at backtracking. Also, there's a difference between holding your hand and pointing you in the right direction. Going back to Legend of Zelda those games have maps that you have to find and drop hits on where you should go but you still have to do the work. Those games don't tell you where you can find all the easter eggs or collectibles. (Well, that depends on the NPC you talk to in the game.) I struggle with finding all the pieces of heart but that didn't ruin the game for me. That was my gripe with Skyward Sword, I mean you start with six hearts instead of three, but I digress.       

Just because a game is too hard for you it doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the game or you. All games are not the same and there not made for everyone. Also watching other people beat the game on twitch is not that helpful, I mean you can’t accomplish things in life just by watching others do it for the most part. People complaining about games being too difficult shouldn't be an issue as long as you can articular your points. When you don't you get videos like that girl on TikTok saying all games need easy mode. 

See what I mean? RPGs don't need an easy mode because you can raise your stats to make the game easier for you. Just because playing games is not a priority for you that doesn't mean game developers should make it easy for you. Just because most gamers are minors doesn't help your case. There are people who work and still make time to play games so what is she talking about? If you want to see a story play the last of us or a telltale game. That's all I have to say about this subject for now. 

P.S. This is something Frosk could have talked about.          

My review of the Batman

 My review of the Batman 

 

Intro: The Batman is an animated series from 2004. It centered on Bruce Wayne/Batman's early years as the cape crusader as he meets his allies and foes for the first time. This series is dull because... (My editor corrected me and told me that I'm reviewing the movie, not the cartoon.) OK, it's official, we have so many movies and TV shows that we can't come up with original titles.  

The Batman: This movie is centered on Bruce Wayne/Batman, who has been fighting crime for the past two years. One day, someone called the Riddler is trying to get his attention, he does this by leaving him clues that will expose a secret that will not only affect Gotham but Bruce Wayne as well. The Riddler has dropped bodies to expose this conspiracy. So, Batman has to figure out what the Riddler is trying to expose before he takes things too far. 

This is one of those movies that's solid but left more to be desired. (I hope the extended version of this movie will fix that.) I'm happy that we finally get a mystery where Batman's detective work is on full display. The action scenes are much better than the ones we got in the previous films because we can see them for the most part. You can tell that the director took inspiration from other films like this and incorporated elements from the source material into the movie. The movie pushes the boundaries of the PG-13 rating, but it didn't go far enough, if you ask me. Gotham City in this movie is the best-looking Gotham City we've had since the 89 movie. The city looks gothic and modern at the same time. 

I can see why people would compare this to The Dark Knight because this movie borrows scenes from that movie; the movie is realistic and deals with escalation. The movie has many themes, like trauma and masks. We see how trauma affects our three main characters, and the movie doesn't do anything new with the mask metaphor. I like the movie's soundtrack because it uses beats from the other Batman films and does its own thing with it. Heck, the movie even uses the 1966 Batman theme without ruining the tone of the movie. The movie is shot in a way where you're by the main character's side with point-of-view shots and close-up focus shots. I'm fond of the way this movie ended because it set up one of two Batman stories from the comics that the writers could do. 

Batman in this movie is the Batman that people know and love, as far as being a tortured character that's brutal and brooding. I don't know what the director meant when he said he's going to give us something different with this character. Besides focusing on the detective aspect of this character, the director didn't break any new ground here. I like that we get narration from him because that helps us get inside his head, plus, he barely speaks. I don't like that we don't get much of Bruce Wayne in this movie because he's putting himself at risk of being exposed as Batman. I get that being Bruce Wayne is not a priority for him; however, that doesn't change the fact that this could blow up in his face. Plus, this was handled better in the comics. 

My grievance with this character is that we don't see his compassionate side for the most part. This is a trait that defines the character, and there are scenes where he could have displayed it. Sadly, he's not that smart in this movie. I mean, he didn't figure everything out on his own. Someone has to point him in the right direction; he's at the right place at the right time, or things have to be spelled out for him, World's greatest detective, my butt. Look, I don't mind Batman getting help; however, the supporting characters shouldn't look like they are holding his hand. Do I really have to comment on his bulletproof suit? Also, it's hard to appreciate that Bruce Wayne is full of anger because the actor playing him comes off as emotionally stunted. Plus, Batman: Arkham Origins did a better job at this.   

I like this movie's take on Selina Kyle because she's more noble and fierce than the other version of the character we have so far. What bugs me about her is that the director could have done a better job of bringing her into the story. She could have worked as a love interest for Batman if the attraction between these two wasn't one-sided. Plus, it would make the ending better. Come on, this is the third time we get this character on screen, and you can't get that one simple aspect of their dynamic right. Her mask drives me nuts because it looks so cheap. I also can't stand her long, ghetto behind nails!  

Lt. Gordon is kind of the same character that we got in Mr. Nolan's Batman trilogy. He and Batman have a good working relationship, even when they're backed into a corner. This complaint is not about Gordon; it's about GCPD. I wish that they were conflicted about Batman working with them.    

The movie hasn't done anything new with Alfred. That's a shame because I thought that he was going to be like his Earth-One counterpart, doing that would give us something different with the character. Besides one tender scene between him and Bruce, they don't have a father-and-son relationship like they did in the past. Also, the movie should have given us more of him.   

Edward Nashton/The Riddler (the main villain) is the scariest version we've got of this character in live-action. He reminds me of the Zodiac Killer, Jigsaw, and Ghost Face from Scream. That's one of the many issues I have with this character; the writers tried to do so much with this character that it's not balanced out well. Will the marketing team behind this movie please explain to me why they try so hard to hide his face!?! 

I was let down that he didn't give Batman more of a challenge in solving his riddles. Really, I'm surprised that the words no more lies wasn't a clue because we see it on all of his victims. My gripe with him is that his backstory failed to make him sympathetic because we don't know his full story. Plus, he endangered others. He also needed more screen time because he almost felt like an afterthought. Also, his plan to expose this secret wouldn't have worked if he hadn't overlooked the details. 

I don't have much to say about OZ/ The Penguin because he's barely in the movie. When we do see him, he's entertaining. That's the problem; he shouldn't be in the movie because he only serves as a red herring. Sidenote, I hope this movie gets nominated for best makeup because I didn't recognize the actor who's playing the penguin.  

Carmine Falcone is disappointing in this movie. He may play a bigger role in the story, but he was more menacing in Batman Begins. On top of that, he put himself at risk of being exposed of wrongdoing.      

One of the things that bothers me about this movie is the secret that the Riddler is trying to expose. It wasn't bad, it just didn't tell us anything new about Gotham. Plus, that was a huge selling point of the movie. With that said, I'm not crazy about how this secret affects Bruce because it kind of undermines his crusade. Plus, the movie doesn't give the people of Gotham a chance to process the reveal. I have mixed feelings about this movie addressing class warfare. On one hand, the movie wasted it, and on the other hand, I'm glad that they did because this is something that the creators should have saved for Bane. 

There are plot points that don't get resolved and some scenes in the movie that comes off as either stupid or unintentionally funny. Speaking of funny, the movie could have benefited from some levity because this movie is too moody for my taste. I'm not saying the movie doesn't have jokes, but they are either subdued or overshadowed by the movie's tone. I was outraged to see that (censor) is in this movie because this character had his or her own film, not too long ago; it's too soon to bring this character back. A minor complaint is that the sound effects don't complement the fight scenes the way the trailers did.    

Overall, I don't consider this the best Batman movie, but it's a good one. I would recommend this if you like thrillers and Noir detective films.  

Rating = Worth Seeing             

My uncharted review

My uncharted review 

Intro: OK despite the fact that I wasn't crazy about the casting of this movie and the red flags I notice in the trailers. I was willing to give this movie a chance because I was expecting this movie to be OK. Plus, there is an audience for a movie like this. Let's see how this movie turned out. (After I saw the movie.) I wish we can sue studios for IP abuse. If only that was a real thing. 

uncharted: This movie is centered on a young man name Nathan Drake who works as a bartender but wants to go on adventures. One day he meets a man name Sully who knows his long-lost brother Name Sam. Sully tells him that he and Sam were looking for the world's greatest treasure and Sully tries to convince Nathan to join them. Finding the treasure becomes difficult because someone else is looking for it so, Sully and Nathan have to beat them to it.  

Sony should be ashamed of themselves for how this movie turned out. You have been working on this movie for fourteen years and this is the best you can come up with really? This wouldn't anger me so much if Sony wasn't involved with this movie, I mean this is their franchise how can you screw up making this movie!?! This movie is suppose to take place before the first game but it has elements for the third and fourth game. May I ask why? Doing that makes things awkward considering what was teased in this movie. The movie has humor, but it falls flat. If you didn't like the product placement in the Power Rangers movie, you're not going to like it in this movie. The movie has some pacing issues. Another thing that hurt this movie is the characters, most of them have little to no personality and they complain about not trusting each other. 

Nathan Drake is a wisecracker and knows a lot about history. There is a scene in the movie where Nathan suppose to have a strong emotional reaction but that didn't happen. 

Victor Sully is a seasoned treasure hunter who's sarcastic in his own right. What bugs me about him is that he's not like his video game counterpart. The only thing the movie got right about this character is that he isn't trustworthy. 

I don't have much to say about Chole Frazer because she doesn't have much of a personality in this movie. Plus, she failed to make a good first impression with her dumb line of Sully doesn't have any friends! I should know because I'm one of them. 

Santiago Moncada (the main villain) is a ruthless treasure hunter. This movie wasted him, I say that because we were told that the treasure, they are looking for is connected to his family. If that's true, then it's hard to see him as the bad guy. 

There isn't a lot to like about this movie beyond the treasure-finding aspects of the film. Plus, showing us how greedy people can be. All in all, this isn't a good adaptation of the video game series but it's a solid adventure film. If you want to see a good uncharted movie watch the fan film by Nathan Fillion. 

Rating = Rental   

My thoughts on Mr. Snyder's Batman

 My thoughts on Mr. Snyder's Batman 

 

Intro: Since I already reviewed all of the Batman movies (With the expectations of the 1966' movie) and no one is going to do Mr. Affleck's Batman film, it's time for me to talk about what Mr. Snyder has done with this character. I didn't plan on doing this because Mr. Snyder didn't do much with this character. However, judging by the trailers for the upcoming Batman movie, it looks like Batman could have the same ARC as this one, but I'm getting ahead of myself. 

I didn't like the Bruce Wayne/Batman we got in Dawn of Justice. Not because he turned into the Punisher, it's because he was stupid, I'll get into that later. Not only does this Batman kill, but he also brands criminals, and that branding is a death sentence in prison. There are four things we know about Batman they are he doesn't use guns, he doesn't kill, he's a stick in the mud, and he's resourceful. You can't change these traits with no rhyme or reason and expect fans not to respond. That's one of the things that made this character interesting and ridiculous; that is, his resolve not to kill. Mr. Snyder made Batman into a killer because he thinks it's cool, are you kidding me!?! Hollywood, please keep this man away from Batman because he has no respect for the character. Don't take my word for it he said it would be interesting to have the Joker rape Batman. Someone needs to call an exorcist because this man is sick!?! 

The movie did give us a reason why Batman is dropping bodies after 20 years, that is the death of Robin pushed him over the edge. First of all, I don't buy that the death of Robin caused him to kill because the Joker is still alive!?! You can't have it both ways; you can't turn Batman into a mass murderer and not have him kill the one person who causes him to go on this path. Second, the movie implied that he didn't start killing until he saw the death and destruction Superman caused. He stopped doing that after the death of Superman. Is this a Joke!?! What makes this worse is that Alfred doesn't call Bruce out on this; well, he does, but not in any meaningful way. He didn't even ask what would your parents say about this? Is this how you want to honor their memories? Also, we don't know how Gotham PD feels about Batman dropping bodies.   

Let me get this straight, Batman wants to kill Superman because he thinks he's dangerous. You plan on doing that by using kryptonite without knowing if it can hurt him or not. Do you see what I mean by Batman being stupid? Not only that, Bruce was watching footage of Superman fighting Zod. So, you're not going to investigate to see if Superman is an enemy or not? Why would Batman take it upon himself to stop Superman what he did doesn't affect Gotham so what gives? Even if someone close to Bruce died in Metropolis that's no excuse to make assumptions with no proof. To the people who think this is the best Batman, did you forget that he's suppose to be the world's greatest detective? Another thing this makes Batman look like a hypocrite, I mean, it's OK for him to kill criminals, but it's not OK for Superman to do it, despite the fact that he was slappy about it.      

It's time to address the elephant in the room, and that's the Martha scene. This scene is a disgrace to Batman’s character! Did people forget that Batman is the most paranoid and distrustful character in fiction? Instead of asking why did you say that name, he should be asking who? He's not going to believe that Martha is Superman’s mother at face value, unless he's willing to truth but verify. Also, fans should be embarrassed that they didn’t know Batman and Superman’s mothers have the same name. Mr. Snyder, why did you make Batman so stupid in this movie!?! This makes Batman look bad because you’re about to kill Superman; people will say anything to get you to spare them. How is this any different from saying Please don’t kill me, I have a wife and kids? How do you know Superman is lying to you to get you to drop your guard, which you did do in this scene. 

You've been Batman for twenty years, and you never came across someone like that? If your argument is that the purpose of this scene is to show Batman that he’s gone too far, I’m not buying it because he already went too far! Did he really think Superman was raised by animals? Batman mentions Superman’s parents beforehand. (When he brought up his parents, did he sound like a villain, or is it just me?) Would he still spare Superman if his mother had a different name? Also, what about all the other criminals that he killed? How does he know their mother’s names are not Martha? Martha is not an uncommon name. So, this is how you stop Batman say the name Martha. This scene deserves to be made fun of. I can't believe people are defending the Martha scene. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they shouldn't; however, the reasons people come up with defending this are a stretch. 

How often do people bond over parents having the same name? 

Would you have a problem with cops letting criminals go for that reason? After Superman died, Batman will honor his memory by putting a team together. Are you kidding me? You wanted to kill him one minute, and the next minute, you treat him like he's your best friend. You don't have a long and storied history with this character like you did in the comics. Because of everything I just said, I had no interest in watching Mr. Affleck's solo film unless it deals with the aftermath of all the people he killed, just like Arrow season 5 did. I don't have much to say about this character in the Justice League movie because he comes off as optimistic in this movie. Now I wouldn't have a problem with this if A this was the last time we see this character and B there was no build-up to this. 

Overall, this character is wasted due to bad writing, directing, and a lack of explanation. It looks like Mr. Snyder was trying to tell a story of a character who was fighting crime for years and lost his way. Or a character who is consumed by grief that he goes too far in fighting crime. It looks like the upcoming Batman film will do one of these two things, and that can be hard to pull off because he hasn't been Batman long enough to go in that direction. That's all I have to say about this Batman.       

My thoughts on G4TV relaunch

My thoughts on G4TV relaunch  

Intro: I didn't plan on talking about this relaunch because it has been around for over a month now, that's not enough time to comment on how it's doing. Plus, I already talked about this network so I don't have much to say about it now, but something happened last week that could hurt this network's second chance. 

When I learn that G4TV was going to be revived two years ago, I was indifferent to the news. I said that because it's tricky to bring this network back because it lost its novelty over time due to the internet. (Ironically, that's what I missed about the network; the novelty of it.) I mean, we have IGN, Twitch, Machinima at the time, E-Sports, video game communities on social media, and people on the internet who cover video game topics. Plus, people are not watching cable TV like they used to. Comcast (The company behind G4) seems to be aware of this, so instead of returning to cable, they're going to take this relaunch online. I understand why they would go in this direction; however, it's going to be an uphill battle for them because of the competition. Reviving G4TV could work if it returns to its former glory. Plus, I would prefer to have all this video game content under one roof. The relaunch happened on November 16, and it was disappointing because it gave us the same two shows they are X-Play and Attack of the Shows. What made this worse is that we only got half of the host for those shows. That's the problem with reviving this network is that it doesn't have enough content to justify itself.  

This is what last week's schedule looks like. 

 

That's another thing, it's trying to operate like it did when it was on TV, and it doesn't work. Seriously, what's the point of bringing this network back if you're going to do the same thing that got this network canceled in the first place? This wouldn't have angry me if G4 didn't do a montage of what this network used to be like and how it is today. What's stopping this network from bringing back the old shows like Players, Arena, Cheat, Icon, Filter, Code Monkey, etc? Well, I heard that they tried to bring back Screen Savers, but that didn't work. Not only that have people who talk about video game content on the internet host these shows. Doing that would also help make this network relevant and give these people recognition. The only thing they can do to compete with others is to talk about obscure games and review handheld games. I say that because a lot of people don't do that, plus handheld games are no longer a thing after the Nintendo Switch. If G4 encourages more people to play handheld games, then they could make a comeback.     

Now it's time to address the elephant in the room. Last week, one of the new hosts of X-Play, who goes by the name Frosk, went on a must-see rant, and it was a must-see just not for the right reason. Her rant was about addressing sexism in video games. Look, I don't mind her talking about this; however, it wasn't the time or the place for it. She starts off by saying she's happy to be a part of G4 because she grew up watching it. I don't buy that statement for two reasons. First of all, if she did grow up watching this network, she should be talking about how G4 fell from grace and what to do to make it better? Instead of doing that, she's trying to be the next Anita Sarkeesian. I'll get into the second reason later. Then she said she gets backlash about her not being as bangable as Oliva Munn and Morgan Webb, the previous host. Then she berates men for saying that they get happy off of seeing those two because it's dehumanizing and weird. She also said that those two women and women in general don't exist to be visually appealing to men. 

First of all, what does men telling you you're not eye candy as the previous host have to do with sexism!?! Second, it's hard for me to comment on the comments she gets because she didn't show us the comments. So, I can't tell if people are trolling you are not. The only comment I saw was Oliva is hot and they deleted it. Why? That wasn't offensive. Because people do get harassed online, and you don't look presentable, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Look, I'm not saying it's OK to be harassed online; however, you can't enter a mostly male-dominated space and not expect them to feel some way about it. Do you think a straight man is not going to get funny looks for working as a fashion designer? Plus, this happens to everyone. You should know this. Are you telling me that you do hear men and women giving each other a hard time for being bad at playing Red Dead Redemption online? 

There are two ways you can deal with it; you can either ignore them or change your image. I wouldn't do the last part because people will think you have an inferiority complex. Also, ignoring people has its limits. This is why I don't like playing games online, because I'm sick of people giving me a hard time for being terrible. Doing that is not helping. Putting your target demographic on blast is not a smart move because you're biting the hand that feeds you. Of course, you're going to be compared to Oliva Munn and Morgan Webb. That's what happens when you replace someone. You don't hear Robert Pattinson complaining about being compared to the other actors who played Bruce Wayne/Batman because that comes with the territory. I understand that talking about getting happy off of seeing an attractive woman can be a bit much; however, you can't throw a dog a bone and not expect the dog to bite. What do you mean by playing with yourself is dehumanizing and weird? That's what men do when they find women attractive. Guess what, women do it too! Her male co-host, especially Adam Sessler, must be Asexual because they also think playing with yourself is weird and encouraging her to say this stuff.  

I hate to burst your bubble, but women do exist to be visually appealing to men and vice versa. We have eyes for a reason. We wouldn't have sex, Hooters, Beauty Pageants, and the human population wouldn't exist if that wasn't the case. She made her rant worse by telling on herself. She admitted that what she's saying is scripted because she can't review video games by herself. Despite reading the same script as everyone else, she gets flak for it. Yes! It does happen to her male co-host, but it's sexist that it happens to her. This is why people don't like you, you're lazy! There are plenty of people on the internet who review video games by themselves. If reviewing games is too much for you, then you're in the wrong profession. Because you're reading someone else's review, it makes you look disingenuous. Really, we should be making a big deal about what she just admitted instead of her calling us sexist. Why are we not watching the person who wrote the review, instead of her? Plus, she gets information wrong. Receiving criticism is not sexist; that comes with being a public figure. How do you expect to get better at your job without feedback? Again, if you can't deal with that, you shouldn't be there. 

The next thing she said is there are people who hate any change that isn't Adam, and brings up that half of the staff are women. (Despite some of them having guy names.) Once again, she talks about fans thinking she ruined this relaunch because men can't sexually objectify her as they did with the previous host. Plus, we would prefer to watch Adam over her is ruining her day, and we are gatekeeping video games. Yeah! People don't like change, especially if those changes are making something worse. Do you mean to tell me that you are above being upset over change? We would rather watch Adam Sessler than you because he's the only face we're familiar with. This relaunch wouldn't stand a chance without him. Plus, we don't know you, and you ruined any chance of getting us to like you because of this rant. Don't get me wrong, Adam is not about criticism; he gets a lot of flak for what he said about Republicans. He despises them so much to the point where he wishes death on his family members who are Republicans. Now, don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, but I respect his conviction. I mean, would you take his hate for Republicans seriously if he didn't include his family? 

If half of the staff has the same mindset as you, then I don't see this as a good thing. First of all, you don't get to complain about men not sexually objectifying you when there is a video of you trying to grab a man's butt. I doubt you ask his permission to do that. Second, this is the other reason why I don't think you grew up watching G4TV, because this is a network that caters to men. Of course, it will have attractive women on that network. Why do you think Oliva Munn plays off on how attractive she is when she was on Attack of the Show? If you were watching the WWE, do you want the wrestlers to be sexy? If the answer is yes, then what are you complaining about? This woman clearly doesn't love herself if she did nothing, anyone would say would bother her. If you don't want to be eye candy, that's fine, but you need to have a good personality to be likable. That's what we like about Oliva Munn and Morgan Webb, it's because they're familiar with video games, funny, and likable. Them being attractive is a bonus. Really, I think those two get too much credit for being eye candy. I mean, Diana Mizota (One of the hosts of Filter) is visually appealing, but I digress. 

Gatekeeping is not a bad thing because there are people who shouldn't talk about things if they're not knowledgeable about the subject. How can we gatekeep you when you work at a job that talks about video games? She finally ends this rant by saying we should be nicer and grateful that they provide free content for you. If you don't like G4, don't watch it. I'm sorry, but people are not obligated to be nice to you, especially when you haven't given us a reason to. Providing free content is your job; why should we be grateful that you're doing what's expected of you? It's a good thing I'm not her boss; if I was, I would give her a tongue-lashing. First of all, she didn't talk about Red Dead Redemption like she was suppose to. Second, her rant has nothing to do with sexism in gaming. Finally, she alienates the target demographic, and we lost viewers because of you. G4 has a lot of work to do to get back on the fan's good graces. 

This year marks the 20th anniversary of G4. Instead of reminding us why we love this network in the first place, you open an old wound and put salt on it. I'm sick of everything being ruined because of politics, because it has no place in the media, sports, and relationships. I would be surprised to see that G4 is still around a year from now. You can't always rely on upsetting the host to get a reaction out of them for views. Overall, bringing G4 back was a mistake because it had its time to shine, and it's hard to go back to what it was.        

My rant about therapist

 My rant about therapist 

 

Intro: In case you're wondering, no! This isn't about my grievances with therapist or thinking that therapy is not beneficial. This post is about their credibility and the pedestal people put them on. Also, there is something else about them that people are either overlooking or didn't think about. I wanted to talk about this sooner, but the topic has become complex. I'll elaborate on that later. Plus, I don't know how much of this profession has changed from its inception to now. I can't verify the changes because I don't know a lot of people who have seen a therapist, even if I did, they can't tell me because of confidentiality. I was going to save this for my overview of the pandemic, but this subject deserves its own post. 

For those of you who have never been to therapy, therapists are people who are licensed in mental health. They listen and help their clients with their problems like communication, behavior, trauma, soul searching, relationships, etc. Basically, they are the voice of reason, someone who is mutual to both sides of the argument. I can't believe people treat therapists like miracle workers. I mean, if you have any problems, the solution is to see a therapist. Society exaggerates on how helpful they are; some people had therapy for years and got nothing out of it. I know building trust takes time, especially when you two are talking about things that you would normally talk about with friends and family. However, where does the line draw? Would you spend a lot of money on something with no results for years? 

Another downside to seeing a therapist for years is that feelings will develop on the woman's and children's end. I'll get back to that later. Also, we don't need them to be our voice of reason; we have friends and family members who can do that. Then again, not everyone has someone to talk to. We might not have this problem if we didn't alienate each other. Once again, I'm getting ahead of myself. The fact that you're telling people to see a therapist tells me that you don't care about the person being in distress, or you don't know how to help him or her. Plus, it doesn't take a genius to know that if someone is mad at you for no reason, that person is looking for trouble, or it's a cry for help. 

For the most part, people know what their issues are why do you think they don't like talking about certain things, like their childhood? Speaking of childhood, that's almost a pointless thing to talk about because, first of all, you're opening up a can of worms. I mean, they have to look at why your parents, peers, school, and neighbors treat you the way they did? Then they have to talk to their parents, and the next, and the next. Second, you're giving your client someone to blame for their problems instead of working past it. I know you have to acknowledge the past to heal or move on from it, but keep it in the past.   

Look, I'm not trying to discredit this profession, but there are limits to therapy. There are some things that you can't fix just by talking it out, like procrastination. If you do procrastinate, you have to figure out do you have a discipline problem or a desire problem? If the doctor told you you'll have diabetes tomorrow if you don't start working out and eating healthy, would you do it? If the answer is yes, then you have a desire problem. Now, if you have a discipline problem, then you need a drill sergeant to light a fire up your butt. If you're on the spectrum or have a personality disorder, therapy can't do much about that because that's the cause of genetics and your environment. They can't fix your genes, but they could do something about the environment. I'll get into that later. All they can do is prescribe medication and help you manage to live with those things. 

Another thing they can't help you erase the pain of losing a loved one or a traumatic event; you have to live with that pain. It's just like breaking a plate; you can crazy glue it back together, but the cracks are still there. Also, your mind can play tricks on you; look at nostalgia, for example. There is a line between memory and imagination; nostalgia plays on that line. This is what bugs me about the Mandela effect because you can use that to gaslight anyone. Your mind can struggle with the conscious and subconscious mind. If you study neuroscience, you know what I'm talking about. 

I get annoyed when I hear someone say F your feelings. Don't get me wrong, I get the sentiment; however, it doesn't make it less disingenuous. Everything we do is based on emotions or intuition, and we justify why we feel this way later. Why do you think some people have a hard time explaining why they like or dislike certain foods, clothes, jobs, colors, and jokes? Also, they don't know why they have fetishes, phobias, and why women keep getting with the wrong guy? Look, I'm not saying you can't come up with or have a good reason why you feel a certain way about certain things; however, that's not enough to win others over. We would all be on one accord instead of having wars and segregation if that were the case. Also, it's foolish to argue with people about things they feel strongly about, like sexuality, religion, and politics.        

 

Here's one of the many gripes I have with therapy that is paying for it. No! It's not because I'm cheap, it's that I don't like the idea of anyone making money off of my misery, especially if I don't know how long the process will last. The fact that I have to do that damages your credibility with anything you say to me. I heard someone say the reason why he wants to be a therapist is so that he won't be on the receiving end of the conversation. If you really want to help people, you shouldn't expect anything in return. Even if you did identify what's bothering someone, it's ultimately up to the patient to fix that problem. This is how we fix the money problem if you are not making progress with your patient in three years, your pay should be reduced to 5 or 10%. 

If you don't think coaches should take credit for a player having raw talent, then therapists shouldn't get credit either, especially if you're not going to be by the person's side every day. Really, they should be writing books on how we can do the basic therapeutic stuff without relying on them all the time. I'm not saying that they don't, it's just that therapists don't have clout with the general public. The only therapist we know about ( besides Jack Daniels) is Dr. Phil. Don't worry, I'll talk about that idiot later.  

Another reason why I frown upon paying for therapy is the double standard. I mean, I have to pay someone to help me acknowledge what's wrong with me, but it's illegal to pay women to relieve me of my blue balls. Help me understand this Twilight Zone nonsense. This is why I don't take society making a big deal about mental health seriously. You don't think not having a sex life affects men's mental health? If you want people to talk about their issues, therapy needs more diversity. I would be outraged to have a White therapist because White people play a role in why Black people are so messed up. 

Also, it needs more men because most of the therapists are women in the U.S. Mostly, women benefit from this institution because they love to talk. I'm sorry that's not a fair statement because no one is talking about their addiction to attention and social media as far as I know. To be fair, I can understand why anyone can be addicted to social media. We have to view attention as currency. People want to get noticed, and social media has made it easy for people to notice them. Most people won't be successful if they didn't get the attention of the right people. They can't help them with their love life because women are stubborn about their standards for men. I would respect that if they didn't give men backhanded compliments. 

If a man has a female therapist, that's going to create conflict because men and women are different. Men are not going to take what you have to say seriously because it will cause more harm than good, regardless of whether or not you're Dr. Smith. (She wrote the book called Men on Strike.) I also heard stories of when a female therapist is counseling a couple, she takes the woman's side. This is an issue because therapists are not suppose to take sides, and this doesn't encourage the couple to come back. I will say this to them they need to be mindful of the influence they have on the couple. For example, when a couple fight and one of them keep bringing up what the therapist said, that could cause more harm than good. I'm not saying couples counseling isn't helpful; however, no one likes a third wheel. 

The thing people seem to overlook is how dangerous they can be. Look at the Batman villain Scarecrow; he specializes in phobias; instead of helping people overcome them, he preys on them. They can also play mind games with you by using reverse psychology and gaslighting you. To be fair, a lot of people are guilty of gaslighting in subtle ways, and you can't be the voice of reason without resorting to doing that to some degree. Therapists may not come up with psychological warfare, but they play a role in how the Police, FBI, and CIA torture, I mean, interrogate people. (Dr. John E. Ried is one of them.) Also, am I the only one uncomfortable with hypnotherapy and ECT? Also, they're not that trustworthy. I mean, confidentiality goes out the window if you're involved in a crime or terrorist attack. Confessing a crime to them will open up a can of worms. 

The fact that I can't talk to them about hurting someone or killing myself is a deal-breaker. I say that because there are some things you can't resolve without resorting to violence. Going back to procrastination, I can't see how that can be fixed without having a difficult taskmaster cracking a whip at you to get things done. Do you think what happened at the Capitol would have happened if the guards were armed to the teeth? What about someone being testy about trespassing on your property? Do you think you can get your point across by telling them to get off my property or fire a warning shot at them? 

This makes me wonder how you counsel victims of rape, abuse, and kidnapping? You tell them that it's not their fault that this happens to them, giving them the impression that life is too uncertain to know what could happen. If that's the case, then why is talking about wanting to hurt someone excluded from that? Just because you don't know what could happen, that doesn't mean you should throw caught to the wind, would you drive a car with no airbags?

So, I can think about hurting someone as long as I don't act on it, but I can't talk to a therapist about it. How does that work? I already talked about suicide, so I'm not going to repeat myself. If you want my trust, you have to tell me an embarrassing story about yourself. Also, therapist needs to own up to their mistakes. For example, the late Dr. Wertham blames comic books for why kids are acting up. That's enough to make you look bad, I mean, know what you're talking about. Also, they get upset when someone argues that depression is not the cause of a chemical imbalance in the brain. They just learn that ADHD plays a role in addiction. This makes us question how can you treat addiction if you're still learning about it?  

I want to talk about addiction real quick. Therapists are inconsistent about that as well. I mean, you can't say addiction is a mental illness and then say that anyone could develop an addiction to something. It's either one or the other. Step two of the twelve-step program needs to be changed because not everyone believes or wants to believe in GOD. You don't think that's the reason why 40-60% of people relapse? Also, getting people to believe in GOD at a low point in their lives is something a cult would do. 

If I was running a rehab, I would get the parent involved in the process because everything starts at home. I'm not going to waste my time getting your child better just for him or her to relapse because you don't know what role you play in this. Parents do things to hurt their children unintentionally. For example, if you correct your kids too often, don't be surprised when they procrastinate. They do that because they don't think they can do anything right. So correct them on things that matter.  

I'm surprised no one pointed out that telling kids life isn't fair is damaging to them because you don't know how they will interpret it. Really, it makes parents look manipulative because they say that when it's convenient, not because parents believe life isn't fair. If they did, they wouldn't complain about anything. This causes a lot of problems between me and my mother. Whenever something messes up happens to me, my response for not telling her is Life isn't fair, remember? 

My point is this; if your child has a substance abuse problem, you can't rest on your morals. If you want your child to get better, you have to be a better parent that mean figuring out what role you play in him or her having this issue. Plus, coming to terms with the fact that the child you lost to substance abuse, you're not getting him or her back.        

        

To the people who put therapists on a pedestal, why didn't you go to them after everything that happened when the pandemic started, instead of letting those things rob you of your joy and sanity? To be fair, we had problems before the pandemic, like people projecting their anger and fears onto each other. We wouldn't have wars, xenophobia, the MeToo movement, people in power being greedy, and White people screwing Black people over if that wasn't the case. Do I have to explain the domino effect that these things create? 

People have become more thin skin in the past five years, maybe longer, to the point where they can't handle someone disliking their videos online. Dr. Haidt talked about how society is making kids fragile. I don't disagree with that; however, almost everyone is fragile about something. That's why we have rules, vote for certain people or surround ourselves with like-minded people to maintain our bubble. It's hard to fix this problem if we don't know where to draw the line. 

We use therapy to alienate each other by saying you need therapy. Am I the only one who finds this insulting? If being flawed is part of the human condition, then who are you to tell me what I need? Most people don't know themself as far as why they like or dislike certain people, places, and things. Heck, you don't know why you turned out the way you did physically and mentally. You can use statistics and biology as an argument as to why you are the way you are, but how do you know that applies to you? My point is, if everyone is screwed up, then no one is. Granted! Certain behaviors are frowned upon in society, but it doesn't matter if we trivialize them. If your attitude is that it's not a big deal that someone experienced the ugly side of life, then we shouldn't make a big deal out of it when we see it on the news. (Heck, we shouldn't broadcast it.) Also, how people carry themselves is either beyond our understanding or beyond the person's control.             

Everything that has happened before and after the pandemic makes therapists look bad. I mean, how do you help people cope when they get scared and angry? Heck, Star Wars tells you nothing good comes out of having those emotions, so why are you giving into them? Another thing that makes them look bad is the mass shootings. I mean, whenever it happens, you say the shooter struggles with mental illness. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm getting sick of that excuse because you're giving them an out. Also, you make people feel uneasy being around them. How many mass shootings do we need to say that the shooters are evil? If that's not evil, I don't know what is. I'm sorry I shouldn't vilify people who have mental problems, but I don't understand how they can get access to firearms.

This leads to the elephant in the room when it comes to therapy because there are so many of them, it's hard to choose. They have the same credibility as social workers, relationship experts, and money gurus. I mean, if you were good at fixing the problem, you would be out of a job. What makes this worse is that they're not on one accord on certain things, like they're discussing how long should you wait to be romantically involved with your client after the fact? Women are more likely to develop feelings for the therapist than men because they're more talkative. I understand why this is frowned upon because the therapist will look like they're grooming the client. The solution to this problem is this get therapists who are unattractive and old enough to be the client's parents. 

Speaking of parents, children will view the therapist as a parental figure. Now I can't think of any way around that. Another thing therapists are competing with influencers. Influencers also face credibility I'm going to use monks as an example. Let's say they give advice on how to find common ground with other people, but they isolate themselves from the world and live with like-minded people. It doesn't matter how sound your advice is if you don't practice what you preach; people won't take you seriously. 

Dr. Phil could have done something about the many voices on mental health. Really, he shouldn't have Doctor in the title of his name because A he hasn't practiced psychology in over thirty years, and B he either lost or gave up his license in 2006. I don't watch the Dr. Phil show. When I do, I can't take him seriously because he offers little to no therapeutic services to his guests. When he does it's overshadowed by him trying to be entertainment. That's why he takes sides, berates his guest, shows off his ego, and gives his famous what were you thinking line. When ABC called him out for doing more harm than good, his response was to change the channel. Are you kidding me!?! You claim to be a psychologist, which means you have a responsibility to the people in this profession. That should come before you becoming the next Mr. Ed. If you're going to do a disservice to this profession, then you shouldn't be called Doctor. 

If I were Dr. Phil, I would run this show the way Dr. OZ runs his show, as far as making people aware of mental illness, addictions, manipulative people, the shadow self, and what we can do about them? Heck, have a different therapist host the show, and if people like him or her, then that person should get their own show. If therapists really want to help people, they should get involved in politics, as far as being the advisors of political figures. Really, they should be the gatekeepers of the positions of power. What's the point of having a therapist in law enforcement, school, and the government if they can't spot people who will cause trouble? 

If someone wants to be in a position of power psychiatric evaluation is not enough; you need to use reverse psychology to expose them. Here's an example, ladies, if you see a man who's out of shape but you see him going to the gym trying to get in shape, would you want him to approach you? If the answer is no, then you're not wife material. If you won't be by a man's side at his worst, then you don't deserve him at his best. Also, you can have them do exercises to test their conviction. Naruto has done this. 

People who want to be parents also need to be evaluated because their upbringing plays a role in the problems we have; you wouldn't be asking about their childhood if that wasn't the case. If they don't like that, then don't bring your kids to therapy if they become a victim of rape, abuse, and kidnapping. If you want to be a single mother, you should at least read a book called Strong Mothers and Strong Sons by Dr. Meg.                       

             

Overall, therapy is overrated, and therapists need to be more proactive.